THE LA RAZA CRIME TIDAL WAVE - “These figures do not attempt to allege that foreign
nationals in the country illegally commit more
crimes than other groups,” the report states. “It
simply identifies thousands of crimes that should
not have occurred and thousands of victims that
should not have been victimized because the
perpetrator should not be here.”
CHARLOTTE CUTHBERTSON

ACUTALLY HE DID! HE AND THE LA RAZA DEMS HAVE PUSHED DREAM ACT COLLEGE DISCOUNTS FOR ILLEGALS DOWN AMERICAN THROATS!

NOT A LEGAL GETS TO VOTE ON HANDING LA RAZA SPECIAL TUITION DISCOUNTS, WHILE AMERICANS ARE DRIVEN INTO BANKRUPTCY PAYING FOR COLLEGE COSTS!

.... and then the legal gets pushed aside so that the ILLEGAL or THIRD WORDER imported in, gets the jobs!

TO BUILD HIS LA RAZA
SUPREMACIST PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS, OBAMA HAS UNLEASHED HIS CORRUPT HOLDER DOJ
TO HARASS AND SUE AMERICAN STATES LIKE ARIZONA.

OBAMA HAS SUED TO
SABOTAGE E-VERIFY SO ILLEGALS GET OUR JOBS. HE’S SUED TO ASSURE ILLEGALS THERE
WOULD BE NO I.D. REQUIREMENT FOR ILLEGALS VOTING.

OBAMA’S SEC. of
(illegal) LABOR IS LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA SOLIS!

THE TAX- FREE MEX
UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONE IS CALCULATED TO BE $2 BILLION
A YEAR. THIS SAME COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION A YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS!

*

Untold Story of American Workers Vs.
Illegal Immigration

By William Gheen

*
Across America a terrible story unfolds trapping honest and hard working
Americans between the proverbial rock and a hard space. It is a story that I
have gleaned from conversations with those directly impacted. It is a story I
have learned from reading between the lines in the print media.

Many of America's print media publications are now facing well deserved
financial extinction due to their penchant for bias, censorship, and promotions
of unpopular political positions, rather than reporting facts. No issue
illustrates their heavy bias more than illegal immigration.

American readers are bombarded on a daily basis with the latest illegal alien
sob stories about how illegal aliens are getting laid off, being profiled,
discriminated against, or finding it harder to get licenses and government
benefits from mean and hateful Americans, while the most important part of the
story is conspicuously absent!

The Americans who are falling down in historic numbers are not in these
articles or publications!

The propagandists at the newspapers should take heed, when I remind them of two
important things. One, people read the news to learn the facts and not the
asserted political positions of the paper. Two, readers look for characters in
articles, as well as in movies and books, who they can identify with.

Americans are losing their wages, jobs, homes, health, and sanity in numbers
unprecedented since the Great Depression, yet you will not hear their trials
and troubles in your elitist newspapers. And if you do get a glimpse of the
horror of your neighbors and fellow countrymen, you will most certainly never
hear of what I will speak of next.

You will not hear about how illegal immigration is trapping Americans in a vise
which is leading to the destruction of their lives.

I hope no one in America needs a lecture on how horrible losing your job can be
when there are no other jobs available and that not being able to provide
health insurance or even food for your children is a life threatening
situation. Marching your belongings and loved ones out of your house in front
of a Sheriff's deputy is a story Americans are living out in larger numbers
daily.

Many studies tell us that American workers work harder, longer, and more
productively than many others on the planet. We are known for getting the job
done and done well. Before the recent political invention of "jobs
Americans won't do" we got the houses built, the landscapes tended, the
chickens plucked, and the bathrooms cleaned without 15 million illegal aliens
in the country.

Here is the scenario and perspective you will not find in your newspaper that
must be told to the nation.

It has long been a tradition in America for wage earners to take a menial job
or an extra job, when times got tough for their individual families, a region,
or during a national economic downturn.

If your husband was injured, the wife would take on an extra job waiting tables
or as a cashier. If you lost your job, you would seek another one no matter
what it was, as long as it would help you keep food on the table and a roof
over you and your family's head.

In 2009, when you go to look for a new job of any kind you will find that many
jobs are not even listed in the Want Ads because those jobs are filled with
illegal aliens and a surplus of legal immigrants. The employers have no desire
to spend money on newspaper ads, if they have an opening they just tell the
foreman, ask their existing workers, or in some cases call up the drug and
human importing cartels in Mexico to order a new shipment of illegal aliens
workers, as was the case with Tyson Foods here in North Carolina.

So American workers are not even finding notices for many jobs in construction,
landscaping, hospitality and food industries, agriculture, meat processing, textiles,
raw materials production, etc...

And even if you do approach one of these employers, you may find yourself in
the position that many ALIPAC supporters have reported.

The employers of illegal aliens and H2B visa immigrants do not want Americans
in the mix. There is rampant discrimination against America workers because
they do not speak Spanish, are more concerned about worker health and safety
laws, and might contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement to report illegal
workers and visa fraud.

Even if you did go out on your own to find the non-advertised menial jobs, and
you made it past the discrimination factors, you still have two major hurdles.

One, multiple studies have documented the common sense knowledge that illegal
immigration greatly depreciates wages for American workers and legal
immigrants. As far back as 1968, the renowned labor leader Cesar Chavez
patrolled the border and ordered his union to call Federal authorities to try
and stop illegal immigration. Wages have been significantly depressed due to
the intentional hyper inflation of the labor markets.

If you are a full tax paying and debt carrying American, many of these jobs now
offer wages that are insufficient for you to even make ends meet!

But illegal aliens are not just in the menial jobs or unskilled labor sector of
our economy. We have seen countless news reports over the last few years
documenting illegal aliens working on commercial jet engines, or in nuclear
power plants, or the technical fields?

With the almost minimal enforcement levels of our existing immigration laws,
illegal aliens are working in jobs across the spectrum!

Anyone seeking a job in a call center or the Information Technology fields will
find many of those jobs have been sent offshore to India. As for the jobs which
remain here at home with Google, IBM, Microsoft, and many others, the positions
are taken and being filled with H1B visa holders from India and China.

According to our unenforced existing immigration laws, an H1B visa worker can only
be used, if an American worker cannot be found for the position and if the
immigrant will be paid the same as an American worker would.

But, since nobody is enforcing those laws, many Global companies are
intentionally throwing out their American workers and replacing them with
foreign labor that will work for much less!

And if you go out in search of an American small business that plays by the
rules and respects our laws, you will find fewer and fewer of them. Honest
employers who hire Americans and legal immigrants have found themselves unable
to compete with the low bids of less scrupulous competitors who hire illegal
aliens. You won't hear their voices in this barage of biased articles either!

Only through the valiant efforts of talk radio show hosts and brave men and
women like Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Michelle Malkin will you hear these voices
represented in the media. And each of them faces the same threat of smears and
lies from the ideology fascists for speaking out for the innocent American
workers and millions of victims of illegal immigration, corporate greed, and
political corruption in our nation.

So American workers are facing what I call "The Great American Replacement
Act" where Americans are being replaced in jobs, homes, schools, colleges,
and at the ballot box through rampant illegal immigration combined with
historically high levels of new worker visas being issued.

To ad further insult to injury, the illegal alien Amnesty supporting groups and
politicians are now trying to claim that even though 11 Million Americans are
out of work, we need Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty right away for
the approximately 7 million illegal aliens, which are currently holding jobs
that our existing laws mandate are illegal for them to have in the first place!

How can so many politicians and people in the media ignore and neglect innocent
Americans who are suffering and having their lives ruined? The dire
consequences for Americans due to the bad economy combined with rampant illegal
immigration are horrific. The fact that their stories are not told and their
voices are censored by the print media is even more horrifying.

For things to improve for Americans, we need our existing immigration laws, and
all workplace and financial regulatory laws fully enforced. Those left in the
media with a soul need to illuminate these problems and side with the American
public before it is too late.

We need to know how much the influence the billions of dollars in perks,
contributions, and payoffs coming into Washington, DC (See Bill and Hillary
Clinton) from Global corporations and countries hostile to the United States
like Saudi Arabia and China are responsible for these dastardly, illegal, and
unconstitutional policies.

The American public is no longer in control of our national destiny. We are no
longer self governed or secure. We are not being asked for our support, we are
being told we will suffer in silence or face aggressive ridicule. We are being
dictated to by politicians who's pockets are lined with the gold of powerful
bankers and foreign nations.

We are now entering an even more dangerous phase where many Americans are
losing all faith in the political process. There is dangerous talk in private
conversations, and many are saying "America has already been conquered
without a shot fired."

Perhaps America's most powerful enemies have discovered how to take us with a
Trojan horse? No adversary would want to take us on militarily or do anything
to awaken the ire of the American populace. Our own politicians, bureaucrats,
and Wall Street leaders have already deeply wounded this nation more than Osama
Bin Laden's attacks on 9/11.

Perhaps they have moved on America's Achilles heal of greed and corruption to
incrementally reduce the American populace to such a desperate level surrounded
by financially empowered subservient foreign workers that we cannot defend
ourselves.

If this is the case and if these atrocities are not corrected soon by political
means, may God help us endure, survive, or prevail against whatever evil our
conquerors have planned for us next.

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born
children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &
social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are cause d by the
illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a
half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are
going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that
crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from
Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and
marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://.com/t9sht

12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass
deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of
between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'
Verify at: http://www.nati
onalpolicyinstitute.org/publications.php?b=deportation

It appears that Pelosi isn't as
clueless and out-of-touch as many of us thought ... at least not as far as
being aware that she needs to do something to be re-elected.

But how can she justify her position on trying to give amnesty and everything
else [even a Dream Act to go to college for Chrissakes!] to the over 20 million
illegals in the U.S., so as to encourage them to invite all their extended
family members and job-stealing amigos to come here too?

Pelosi sends mixed signals to those she is supposed to be serving, by instead
serving the interests of foreign nationals here illegally.

How can the Democrats claim in good faith that they are truly concerned about
our country's economy as long as they are trying to do things that wreak havoc
upon it?

I know an illegal making over $2,000 a week at an auto upholstery shop. That's
over 100K yearly! How many of our college-grad teachers earn that much? Most
Americans DON'T.

And he told me he sends almost 90 percent of his paycheck home to his family in
Mexico City, while living here with a "girlfriend" collecting welfare
and food stamps.

Plus, he conserves his paycheck further by getting "free" food,
clothing, etc. from taxpayer-funded agencies and church donations intended for
our own needy people.

He even got one taxpayer-funded Latin Community group to pay for his CELLPHONE!
So he can stay in touch with his family.

The illegal alien's name is Ruben. And that car upholstery shop has a
"phantom workforce" to supplement its legally employed workforce,
which is all they report for tax purposes. Ruben's brother also works there.

Here's how he gets paid: If the shop charges a customer $1500 to re-upholster
car seats, and it only takes Ruben 3 hours to do it, he gets HALF. So he gets
paid about $250 per hour. And both Ruben and the shop are quite happy with
their arrangement.

I reported it, giving the name and location of the shop, to my Democrat federal
senator's office, asking them to investigate and prosecute. But they ignored my
request... which is typical of most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress.
For they are deliberately turning a blind eye to it.

This is far from an isolated example. Illegals are not only stealing
high-paying skilled blue-collar type jobs, but also many illegals own their own
businesses [construction, home improvement, landscaping, auto repair, roofing,
paving, janitorial services, housekeeping, etc., etc.].

Next time you're in Home Depot or Lowes, look for illegals there getting
supplies for their plumbing jobs, etc.

I have a friend who tried starting a janitorial services business. But he gave
up after a few months, telling me he couldn't compete with illegals paying
their illegal employees $3 an hour.

Another illegal near me was selling used cars with open titles, parking them at
a shopping center with "for sale" signs on anywhere from one to three
cars at a time. And he was selling them quickly. Every week I saw different
cars. But I reported it to my state's motor vehicle department, and about a
month later they towed his cars away and warned the shopping center to not let
anyone sell cars there.

In Pelosi's state she has allowed them to bankrupt over 100 hospitals and to
render California's infrastructure virtually gasping for its breath.

*

AN AMERICAN SEES & SPEAKS

I THOUGHT ILLEGALS CAME TO WORK (haight ashbury)

it seems that
they came to fleece us. they get food stamps, section eight housing medical,
heat vouchers, and a job off the books that they stole from an american citizen
who jusy happens to not have a college degree. What do we get in return? we get
a violent culture where their own politicians get killed if they don't follow the
drug lords' will. We get gangs of cowards who have no respect for human life.We
get drive-by shootings. We get our jails filled up.They force other weaker
illegals into the sex trade. we get our cars stolen, our children raped, our
homes, burglarized and for what? So a handful of selfish politicians can get
elected by catering to the hispanic vote. I'm very disappointed in american
hispanics who put foreign hispanics before their own countrymen of a different
color. To me, it shows their true colors and that it is all about increasing
their political power. You know we whites can play the racist game too. What
have mexicans ever invented? Cars, planes, trains, phones, t.v.,
computers,sewing machines, rocket ships that can take a man to the moon and
beyond. WHAT? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Yet we americans are willing to share all
these things with you ,even though you people didn't know what a wheel was or
how to use it when we met you! But still you people come over in record numbers
and try to take over. If you ever did take over through the selfishness of our
self centered politicians who are in reality traitors under the guise of
liberalism, evolution and progress would come to a screeching halt and within a
few centuries we would be like 'planet of the apes'.

*

“What's
needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known
for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN
IS TO CUT WAGES!

“We could cut
unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,”
said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim
American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American
people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens
and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to
enforce immigration laws.”

*

MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE
GENEROUS DONORS TO LA RAZA – THE MEXICAN FASCIST POLITICAL PARTY. THESE FIGURES
ARE DATED. CNN CALCULATES THAT WAGES ARE DEPRESSED $300 - $400 BILLION PER
YEAR!

“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration
policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for
low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers
lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding
of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor

*

Illegals
make more than US workers

Joe Legal
works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour
with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and
gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per
year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has
$31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, $31,200.00 per year.
Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his
family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has
$24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local
clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare.
Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year.. Joe Legal
now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and
welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal
now has $9,631 .00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal
pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has
$ 31,200.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $280.00 per family member/ month federal CASH AID for
four family members . Jose Illegal has $ 43,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has
$7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still
has $ 43,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $ 43,200.00. stretch to pay utilities, gasoline,
and what he sends out of the country every month.."actually Jose illegal
doesn't pay for most utilities in many states as he gets county assistance to
pay the bills and his late fees"
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
"and pays a higher tax rate if he earns above a certain amount"
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal
pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government
sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe
Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but
Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

…. AND THEN
JOE LEGAL STILL GETS THE TAX BILL TO SUPPORT ALL THIS “CHEAP” MEXICAN LABOR,
AND THE CRIME TIDAL WAVE THAT COMES WITH THE OCCUPATION!

*

In Los Angeles 47% of those
employed are illegals. What is it the rest of the state (which pays out $18
billion per year in social services to illegals)??? Look around you anywhere
and see how many speak English? Know of any construction sites that have an
American born tradesman that actually speaks English?

The
DREAM Act has become a rallying cry for President Obama, members of his
administration, and liberal Democrats everywhere. President Obama has vowed to
“keep fighting for the DREAM Act,” which would grant amnesty to millions of
illegal immigrants.

It’s
true when listeners or those polled don’t know the facts that the DREAM Act has
some appeal. After all, we are all naturally sympathetic when children are
involved.

But
the descriptions of the DREAM Act voiced by President Obama and his cohorts are
not accurate. And the consequences are never told.

DREAM
Act supporters claim that only children would benefit from such a bill, but the
facts tell another story. Under most DREAM Act proposals, amnesty would be
given to individuals up to the age of 30—not exactly children. And some other
proposals don’t even have an age limit.

These
supporters also maintain that illegal immigrants can’t go college without the
DREAM Act. But the truth is that illegal immigrants can already go to college
in most states.

And
ultimately, most versions of the DREAM Act actually don’t even force illegal
immigrants to comply with all the requirements in the bill, such as going to
college or joining the military. The administration can waive requirements
because of “hardship”at its complete discretion.

DREAM Act proposals are
also a magnet for fraud. Many illegal immigrants will fraudulently claim they
came here as children or that they are under 30. And the federal government has
no way to check whether their claims are true or not.

WIKILEAKSEXPOSES OBAMA'S AGENDA OF LA RAZ SUPREMACY AND AN ILLEGAL
IN EVERY AMERICAN JOB TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED. THE LEGALS GET THE TAX BILLS FOR
THE MEX WELFARE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE.

AT A TIME OF UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS, OBAMA HAS SUED
THE STATE OF ARIZONA FOR IMPLEMENTING E-VERIFY! OBVIOUSLY IF OBAMA DIDN'T KNOW
THAT E-VERIFY KEPT ILLEGALS OUT OF AMERICAN JOBS, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BOTHERED.
THE MAN WILL DO ANYTHING TO BUILD IS PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS!

"We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs
taken by illegal workers," said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas,
co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. "President Obama is on
the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should
support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they
need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws."

OBAMA’S CANDIDATE FOR THE SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE TO BE A
PANDERER TO THE SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND LA RAZA PARTY MEMBER! HE FOUND SUCH A
CANDIDATE IN THE SELF-STYLED “WISE LATINA” SOTOMAYER, A MEMBER of THE MEXICAN
FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA! ON THE BENCH, SOTOMAYER
REFERS TO ILLEGALS NOT AS LAWBREAKERS, BUT AS “UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS”. OBAMA
REFERS TO ILLEGALS AS HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF “UNREGISTERED VOTERS”!

*

BARACK OBAMA FROM THE FLOOR of the SENATE – STATE of the
UNION MESSAGE:

“I’m not here to punish banks!”ONE
OF THE FEW TRUTHS THIS MAN HAS EVER TOLD!

“Illegals
are not including in Obamacare”A LIE

*

OBAMA’S DEPT. of LA RAZA JUSTICE HAS CAUTIOUSLY DANCED
AROUND THE PROSECUTION OF ANY OF OBAMA’S CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS, BUT HAS
RABIDLY FOUGHT AGAINST AMERICAN INTERESTS, OUR LAWS, BORDERS AND VOTING LIMITED
TO AMERICAN CITIZENS!

OBAMA HAS SUED FOUR AMERICAN STATES ON BEHALF OF HIS LA RAZA
PARTY BASE.

OBAMA HAS SUE ARIZONA, AN AMERICAN STATE THAT HAS ATTEMPTED
TO PUSH BACK THE MEX INVASION, CRIME STATE, WELFARE STATE, AND NARCOMEX
INVASION!

OBAMA HAS SUED TO STOP E-VERIFY TO ASSURE HIS PARTY BASE OF
ILLEGALS A QUICK PATHWAY TO OUR JOBS, AND VOTING BOOTHS.

OBAMA HAS SUED AMERICAN STATES TO STOP THESE STATES FROM
REQUIRING I.D.S TO HALT THE LA RAZA GET OUT THE VOTE!

OBAMA HAS TURNED OVER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE MEXICAN
FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA TO HELP THEM ORGANIZE ILLEGALS INTO VOTING!

VIVA LA RAZA?

WHILE OBAMA HAS DONE FUCKING NOTHING FOR BLACK AMERICA, HE’S
GROVELED AT THE FEET OF HIS BANKSTERS AND LA RAZA FROM DAY ONE!!!

The introduction of Sonia
Sotomayor as President Obama’s first selection for the US Supreme Court took
place at a White House media event of a completely choreographed and
stereotyped character. Such ceremonies have become an essential part of how
America is governed. The less the political system is capable of actually
responding to the needs and aspirations of working people, the more it must put
on the pretense of concern, using biography as a substitute for policy.

As always on such occasions,
the nomination’s “roll-out” was an unrestrained exercise in public
tear-jerking. Led by President Obama, who based his own campaign on the
marketing of a compelling personal “narrative,” Sotomayor’s elevation was
presented as a triumph over all manner of adversity. There were tributes to the
humble origins of the future Supreme Court justice, noting her hard-working
immigrant parents, her poverty-stricken childhood in a South Bronx housing
project, the death of her father when she was nine years old, and even her
struggle with juvenile diabetes.

No doubt, it has not been an
easy personal journey for Judge Sotomayor, and there can be little doubt that
she is as tough as nails. However, amidst all the tributes to Judge Sotomayor’s
triumph, one cannot help but think about the conditions that confront the
hundreds of thousands of South Bronx residents whom she left behind.

There is another element of
Sotomayor’s nomination that deserves analysis. Media coverage of the
nomination, and the bulk of the political commentary, liberal and conservative,
approving and hostile, focused on the fact that she would become the first
Hispanic and third woman to take a seat on the highest US court. The premise of
both supporters and detractors was that Sotomayor’s gender and ethnic origins
were of decisive importance in evaluating her nomination and determining her
likely course on the court.

Totally obliterated in this
flood of commentary is the most fundamental social category in American
society: class. Sotomayor will go to the Supreme Court, not as the
representative or advocate of Hispanics, women or the socially disadvantaged
more generally, but as the representative of a definite social class at the top
of American society—the financial aristocracy whose interests she and every
other federal judge, and the entire capitalist state machine, loyally serve and
defend.

Only one “mainstream” bourgeois
publication focused on this critical question. That
was the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page serves as a major
voice of the ultra-right—denouncing the Sotomayor nomination in strident
tones—but whose news pages explored her record as a well-paid commercial
litigator and federal judge, on issues of direct interest to big business,
including contract law, employment and property rights.

The newspaper quoted several
Wall Street lawyers describing Sotomayor as a safe choice for corporate America.
“There is no reason for the business community to be concerned,” said one
attorney. Barry Ostrager, a partner at Simpson Thacher LLP who defended a unit
of J.P. Morgan Chase in a lawsuit over fraudulent pricing of initial public
offerings, cited Sotomayor’s role in an appeals court ruling barring the
class-action suit. “That ruling demonstrated that in securities litigation, she
is in the judicial mainstream,” he told the Journal.

Barack Obama is the
culmination of this process. Celebrated as the first African-American
president, he has overseen the greatest handover of resources to the
billionaires and Wall Street speculators in history. In the restructuring of the
auto industry, with ever-escalating demands for cuts in jobs, pay and benefits
for auto workers, he has set the stage for the greatest assault on the working
class since the Reagan administration smashed the PATCO air traffic controllers
strike in 1981 and gave the signal for a nationwide campaign of wage-cutting
and union-busting. In this, Obama demonstrates that the class he serves, not
the color of his skin or his social origins, is the decisive political factor.

The
political development of the American working class requires, first and
foremost, the direct and open discussion of the class realities of American
society. No country in the world is as deeply and intractably divided along
economic lines as the United States, where the top 1 percent of the population
owns 40 percent of the wealth and monopolizes 20 percent of the income. Any analysis
of the political issues facing working people that does not take these class
divisions as the fundamental reality is an exercise in deception and political
stultification.

Patrick
Martin

*

“The
stimulus plan purports to address the deepest economic crisis since the Great
Depression without examining its underlying causes or the social interests that
underlie the crisis. This is no accident, since the fundamental premise of all
of the measures taken in response to the crisis, by Obama no less than Bush, is
the defense of the interests of the financial elite.”

*

Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors
are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG
($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).

*

OBAMA SELECTED LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA
SOLIS TO ADVANCE THE OBAMA AGENDA OF KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED, AND BUY THE
ILLEGALS’ VOTES BY MAKING SURE ILLEGALS GET OUR JOBS! THE EASIEST WAY TO DO
THIS IS TO SABOTAGE LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS. OBAMA, THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE OBAMA DEPT. of LA RAZA JUSTICE, AND THE LA RAZA DEMS
ARE SABOTAGING E-VERIFY ALL OVER THE NATION!

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Friday, June 5, 2009

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor faces new questions about her views
on group and identity politics... after it became clear she has a long history
of making race-and-gender based remarks. We’ll have a special report.
Sotomayor’s views on our Second Amendment rights are the
subject of our face off debate tonight.

*

From the Desk of
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Sotomayor Evasive, Disingenuous During Confirmation Hearings

The
eagerly anticipated confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia
Sotomayor got underway this week. And how did she do?

Let’s
start with Sotomayor’s rambling and constantly shifting explanation for one of
her most controversial statements – that she “would hope that a wise Latina
woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a
better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” This racist
remark was made during a speech Sotomayor delivered to students at Cal Berkeley
in 2001. The reason it is getting so much attention is that it calls into
question Judge Sotomayor’s impartiality – and she made the remark repeatedly
through the years. (Judicial Watch addressed this comment and many other
troublesome statements and activities by Sotomayor in a letter to Senators
Patrick Leahy, D-VT, and Jeff Sessions, R-AL, last week. You can read it by clicking
here.)

During the
hearing, at first, Sotomayor dismissed the statement as a “rhetorical flourish”
that “fell flat.” However, under subsequent questioning Sotomayor attempted to
defend her remarks, indicating that it was an attempt to “inspire” her
audience. Of course Sotomayor quickly added that the comment has nothing to do
with her attitude towards dispensing justice, which she claims is firmly rooted
in the rule of law. (Action by the Supreme Court might argue this point, given
that the High Court just overturned the decision she helped make in the Ricci
racial discrimination matter. Click
here for
more.)

Sotomayor
also tried to justify the comment by comparing it to allegedly similar ones
made by Justice Alito and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. And in another
explanation she said her words shouldn’t be taken literally.

“I think
she just made it more muddled,” said Senator
Jeff Sessions,
the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In sum, Judge
Sotomayor tried to deny the plain meaning of her “wise Latina” statements. This
disingenuous approach may pass muster in Washington, but most people would be
troubled by her lawyerly evasions.

Can you
recall a Supreme Court nominee in recent years that has had to spend so much
time defending their impartiality as a judge? I can’t.

On the
issue of abortion Sotomayor said that she feels Roe v Wade is “settled law.” According to The
Associated Press:
“Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that she considers the
question of abortion rights is settled precedent and says there is a
constitutional right to privacy...Answering a question later from Sen. Orrin
Hatch, R-Utah, Sotomayor said that “all precedents of the Supreme Court I
consider settled law…” This doesn’t mean much, as the Supreme Court regularly
overturns its precedents.

Judge
Sotomayor said she had no idea why one of her former colleagues at the New York
law firm Pavia & Harcourt would say, "I can guarantee she'll be for
abortion rights." Maybe he knew of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and
Education Fund’s radical
pro-abortion agenda when
she helped run the organization? But Judge Sotomayor professed to have no clue
about the legal positions of her former group, despite the fact that she set
the group’s litigation agenda.

Senator
Lindsey Graham also initiated a tough, dramatic
line of questioning with
respect to Sotomayor’s temperament. In fact, Senator Graham flat out asked her:
“Do you have a temperament problem?” (Sotomayor has been described as a “bully”
on the bench.) Sotomayor attempted to defend herself against the charge but the
issue was still left hanging in the hearing room.

Sotomayor’s
problem for this hearing was a big one. She has had to defend the indefensible.
She did this by reversing course, professing fidelity to the law, disavowing
her radical judicial philosophy as described in her many speeches and writings,
and by misleading the committee on one some of her more controversial
decisions.

The judge
went so far as to disavow President Obama’s lawless “empathy” standard for
picking judges. Judge Sotomayor said that she would apply the law to the facts.
She said, “Judges can’t rely on what is in their heart.”

In the
end, she sounded like the most conservative nominee to the Supreme Court by a
Democratic president in thirty years. (It is interesting that, even in the age
of Obama, liberal jurists must pretend to be conservatives to gain Senate
approval. It confirms the victory of conservatives in framing the public policy
debate over liberal judicial activism. Even Obama’s nominee to the Supreme
Court must pretend to reject judicial activism.)

There is
no question, given all of her “wise Latina” and other radical statements and
her long-term connection to groups such as the far-left Puerto
Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, that Judge Sotomayor is the wrong judge
for a seat on the Supreme Court. I don’t believe her confirmation conversion to
“fidelity to the law.”

Unfortunately,
Republicans seem resigned to the fact that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed
with little debate, but it’s not too late to change the situation. You must
make your voices heard! Even liberal Senator Feinstein (D-CA) admitted this
week that she had received calls of concern on the Sotomayor nomination. These
calls matter. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard today at 202-224-3121, and let
your senators know your thoughts.

Some in
the press have characterized the Sotomayor hearings as “grueling.” I attended
them for a bit and I found them interesting – in how a nominee can evade
questions, deny her record, and largely control the room in the face of
questioning by hapless senators. A well-prepared lawyer like Judge Sotomayor
can do these types of hearings in their sleep.

There have
been some tough questions for sure, but without an underlying commitment to
carefully making the case against this nomination too many of the questions
amounted to nothing more than “rhetorical flourishes” that “fall flat.” As a
result, Americans may end up with a biased, activist justice on the Supreme
Court.

*

VIVA LA RAZA?

Sonia Sotomayor opposes E-Verify
requirement

True to form, she said it was
illegal to make employers e-verify citizen status of new hires.

Interesting, she says a state cannot force employers to check if employees they
are hiring are illegal. Thankfully the court ruled 5-3 supporting law. But now
we know for sure just how extreme far left Obama's choice was. We cannot afford
Obama to get another term, or you can bet this country will be overrun by
illegals. I don't want this country to be poor and corrupt like Mexico, which
it will if illegals overrun the country.

*

Obama Administration Challenges
Arizona E-Verify Law

The
Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to strike down a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who
hire illegal aliens, a law enacted by then-Governor Janet Napolitano. (Solicitor
General's Amicus Curiae Brief). Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law
requires all employers in Arizona to use E-Verify and provides that the
business licenses of those who hire illegal workers shall be repealed.
From the date of enactment, the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest
groups have been trying to undo it, attacking it through a failed ballot
initiative and also through a lawsuit. Now the Chamber is asking the United
States Supreme Court to hear the case (Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria),
and the Obama Administration is weighing in against the law.

To
date, Arizona’s E-Verify law has been upheld by all lower courts, including the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, viewed it as
an exercise of a state’s traditional power to regulate businesses. (San Francisco
Chronicle,
June 2, 2010). Obama’s Justice Department, however, disagrees. Acting
Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in his filing with the Supreme Court that
the lower courts were wrong to uphold the statute because federal immigration
law expressly preempts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring
illegal immigrants. Mr. Katyal argues that this is not a licensing law,
but “a statute that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens and uses
suspension and revocation of all state-issued licenses as its ultimate
sanction.” (Solicitor
General's Amicus Curiae Brief, p. 10). This is the administration’s first court
challenge to a state’s authority to act against illegal immigration, and could
be a preview of the battle brewing over Arizona’s recent illegal immigration
crackdown through SB 1070.

Napolitano
has made no comment on the Department of Justice’s decision to challenge the
2007 law, but federal officials said that she has taken an active part in the
debate over whether to do so. (Politico, May 28, 2010).
As Governor of Arizona, Napolitano said she believed the state law was valid
and became a defendant in the many lawsuits against it. (Id.).

*

Sotomayor’s record: A judicial
pragmatist and defender of corporate interests

By Don Knowland
17 July 2009

As
a nominee to the US Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor is reliable defender of
corporate interests, siding with big business, government authority and the police
far more than with the poor, the arrested or the oppressed. With 17 years on
the federal courts, the most of any Supreme Court nominee in more than half a
century, she is anything but an unknown quantity.

In
her five years as a federal district court trial judge, Sotomayor issued
hundreds of written decisions. In 12 years on the appellate court, she has been
the principal author of over 150 opinions. She joined in the majority opinion
in over 350 cases.

A
survey of her written decisions reveals a jurist firmly wedded to the bourgeois
mainstream, particularly when business interests are at stake, and not given to
sweeping formulations. The New York Times legal correspondent assigned
to cover the Supreme Court wrote that Sotomayor’s opinions “reveal no larger
vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language.”

A
Congressional Research Service analysis found that Sotomayor’s rulings could
not be easily categorized in ideological terms, and “showed an adherence to
precedent, an emphasis on the facts of a case, and an avoidance of overstepping
the court’s judicial role.”

According
to one of Sotomayor’s former law clerks, “She is a rule-bound pragmatist-very
geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law
dictates...” Sotomayor herself has professed to follow a narrow “just the
facts” approach to judicial decision-making, a style described by some as
judicial minimalism.

However,
when important issues arise that affect more fundamental interests of the
ruling elite, such as national security matters or big economic questions,
Sotomayor comes down invariably on the side of the establishment, at the
expense of the majority of society.

A law-and-order judge

As
with most former prosecutors, Sotomayor has a negative if not hostile view of
the rights of those accused of crimes. Encomiums from her former associates at
the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and various New York and national
police organizations were read into the record of her confirmation hearing.

According
to Leroy Frazer Jr., first assistant district attorney in Manhattan and a
former colleague of Sotomayor, she “has contributed greatly to law enforcement
in New York” as a judge. John Siffert, an attorney who taught appellate
advocacy with Sotomayor at New York University School of Law for ten years,
confirms that she is loath to overturn criminal convictions. “She was not
viewed as a pro-defense judge” while she sat as a trial judge, Siffert told the
press.

One
decision Sotomayor authored as an appellate judge upheld the use of evidence
police seized mistakenly, thinking they had a warrant. The Supreme Court’s
five-justice conservative bloc came to the same conclusion this year, over the
dissent of the court’s four moderate justices. Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford Law
School professor who was on the losing side of the January Supreme Court
decision, said Judge Sotomayor’s ruling displayed her “willingness to give
police the benefit of the doubt.”

One
case decided by Sotomayor as an appellate judge involved the timeliness of the habeas
corpus petition filed by a prisoner convicted of murder and rape. Congress
had only recently passed President Bill Clinton’s Anti-Terrorism-Effective
Death Penalty Act, which imposed a one-year time limit on such petitions.
Confusion existed in the federal courts regarding how the new law would be
applied to pending cases. Following the advice of a court clerk, the
defendant’s attorney mailed in rather than filed the appeal the day it was due.

Sotomayor
and her colleagues on the case refused to consider the petition, ruling that it
was untimely and that its lateness was not excusable. They also summarily
brushed off the defendant’s claim to innocence, even though guilt was based on
a confession the police coerced when the defendant was 17. The defendant then
spent six more years in jail before DNA testing conclusively established his
innocence.

Capital and labor

While
frequently dissenting against reactionary rulings on issues involving
democratic rights, the four-justice moderate bloc on the Supreme Court has
increasingly tended to join the court’s right wing in favoring big business
over workers and consumers where their economic interests are explicitly
counterposed, as in cases involving punitive damage awards against giant
corporations.

Sotomayor
is unlikely to buck that trend. She currently sits in the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals, which hears the most important appeals affecting Wall Street and
the financial industry. That court’s 2006 decision strongly favored Wall Street
in a group of cases involving thousands of investors suing dozens of the
largest banks and investment houses, including Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs,
Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and the now
defunct Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. The plaintiffs charged massive fraud
involving manipulation of the market for initial public offerings of company
shares. Such schemes played a major role in inflating the dot.com and telecom
bubbles.

As
a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case could proceed only if they could
band together for class actions. The appellate ruling dismissed the cases on
the basis that questions as to what information and assurances individual
plaintiffs relied on in purchasing shares precluded finding sufficient
commonality to permit the cases to proceed on a class action basis. This
amounted to an extremely strained reading of the rules regarding class action
suits and reduced the value of the plaintiffs’ recovery by many billions of
dollars.

Sotomayor’s
most well known decision as a district court judge involved her issuing an
injunction in 1995 against baseball team owners during the longest strike in
baseball history, which followed an owner lock-out of players. Sotomayor ruled
that the National Relations Labor Board had cause to believe that baseball
owners committed unfair labor practices by eliminating free agency and salary
arbitration provisions of the expired collective bargaining agreement. She
ordered the owners to bargain in good faith on those issues. The strike then
ended.

As
an appellate judge, Sotomayor has favored working class plaintiffs mainly in
disability cases. In one case, Sotomayor ruled that New York did not
sufficiently accommodate a dyslexic applicant taking the bar examination.

Sotomayor
dissented in a 2003 case brought by the federal Equal Opportunity Employment
Commission against a major trucking company relating to discrimination against
drivers who took medication that the company believed impaired driving. Federal
regulations provide that discrimination occurs if a company perceives that a
worker or workers have an impairment as to a “class of jobs” compared to average
persons of comparable skill, as opposed to single jobs. The majority dismissed
the case, saying that the evidence showed only that the employer perceived the
drivers as incapable of long-distance, stressful driving jobs. Sotomayor argued
that there was sufficient evidence that the employer perceived the impairment
to extend to any truck driving jobs, an entire “class of jobs,” such that the
case should proceed to trial.

Constitutional rights

Outside
of the criminal case context, Sotomayor has shown some favor toward suits
challenging violation of the Fourth Amendment probable cause and warrant
requirements and due process rights.

In
a 2002 case, Sotomayor wrote that New York City’s policy of seizing and then
keeping for an extended period of time, sometimes for years, vehicles used by
alleged drunk drivers or in other misdemeanor crimes violated the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The
City’s ordinance permitted it to file a civil case seeking the forfeiture of
vehicles of those found guilty. But the forfeiture cases were often deferred
for many months or even years, while the underlying criminal cases were
resolved. Sotomayor’s ruling required a meaningful hearing at a meaningful time
as to whether the vehicle’s owner could recover it. Her decision reversed the
trial court ruling of then-District Judge Michael Mukasey, who later became
George Bush’s last attorney general.

In
a case seeking damages for a house search based on a flawed warrant, Sotomayor
dissented in order to challenge the formulation used by the majority to define
when a police officer is entitled to “qualified immunity” from suit for such a
violation. The Supreme Court excuses an officer from such constitutional
violations unless the law is so clear that an objectively reasonable officer
could not believe his conduct is lawful. Sotomayor objected to her circuit’s
formulation of this defense that gave police officers extra latitude in meeting
that standard.

Sotomayor
wrote a 2006 opinion approving suspicionless searches of passenger carry-on
luggage and car trunks before boarding a ferry, based on the government’s
purported interest in deterring terrorist attacks on large vessels engaged in
mass transportation. She joined another decision that struck down a portion of
the Patriot Act relating to disclosure of National Security Letters on First
Amendment grounds.

In
a 2002 case, Sotomayor authored an opinion that gave prison officials wide
latitude to infringe prisoner First Amendment rights by withholding incoming
mail if they could articulate some security justification for such action. In
other cases, Sotomayor has granted latitude to prisoners in exercising
religious rights.

Wsws.org…
get on their free daily emails for updates on corporate rape and pillage

*

Lou Dobbs
Tonight
Thursday, July 9, 2009

And Harvard economics professor JEFFREY MIRON will weigh in on the state of the
U.S. economy—and why the only plausible argument for bailing out banks crumbles
on close examination.

Attorney Luz Herrera hopes that Sonia Sotomayor, if
confirmed to the Supreme Court, can get across the message that the Latino
experience is already 'a part of the fabric of U.S. society.'

Hector Tobar

June 2, 2009

I made a pilgrimage to Compton last week in search of wisdom, to a little
storefront with bars over the windows and a liquor-grocer next door.

Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court nominee, set me off on this quest with her
oft-repeated observation that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of
her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a
white male . . . "

Southern California is home, arguably, to more wise Latinas than any other
place in the United States. The only
Latina in Obama's cabinet (Labor Secretary Hilda Solis) is from here. And I
personally know dozens more, starting with my mother, my wife, my mother-in-law
and assorted professors, activists and sharp-minded stay-at-home moms.

But Judge Sotomayor was referring, specifically, to the law. So I thought I
should go find a smart Latina attorney and ask her if she thought that was
true. Does American jurisprudence look different from a Latina woman's eyes,
and if so, what does she see in the United States that a wise "white
male" does not?

Until recently, Luz Herrera, 36, ran a solo law practice in Compton. She was
born in Tijuana to Mexican parents and raised in heavily Latino neighborhoods
of unincorporated West Whittier. But she'll be the first to tell you that her
background alone didn't make her wise. Neither, she says, did Harvard Law
School, from which she graduated in 1999.

"I learned to think like a lawyer there," she said of Harvard.
"I learned how to be a lawyer here. That's what Compton gave
me."

What Sotomayor can bring to American justice, Herrera told me, is something
that Herrera longs for every day: the understanding that the Latino experience
is already "a part of the fabric of U.S. society" and that this truth
should be reflected in our legal system. PART OF THE FABRIC WE NEED TO RID
OURSELVES OF!!!!*

From the Los Angeles Times

Speeches reveal more about Sotomayor's thoughts on race

The Senate Judiciary Committee receives a file on the
Supreme Court nominee's life from Princeton onward. She has spoken on other
occasions of ethnic identity and her hopes about 'wise Latina' judges.

By
David G. Savage

June 5, 2009
Reporting from Washington — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, already facing controversy
for a 2001 speech on the virtue of having "a wise Latina" as a judge,
made similar comments in a series of speeches released Thursday.

She said the nation is "deeply confused" about the proper role of
race and ethnic identity, and she maintained that her identity as a Latina
shaped her life and her work in court. She hoped "a wise Latina"
would reach a "better conclusion" than a white male, she said on
several occasions.
Since her nomination, conservative activists have cited the comment as evidence
that she would rule based on her ethnic identity.
President Obama sought to defuse the criticism last week. "I'm sure she
would have restated it," he said, adding that she was "simply saying
that her life experience will give her information about the struggles and
hardships that people are going through."
The speeches were among a thick file, including court opinions and financial
documents, that the White House sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on
Thursday. They cover 35 years of Sotomayor's life, from her days as a Princeton
student through her time as a prosecutor, corporate lawyer, trial judge and
appeals court judge.
She reported a net worth of $740,000, consisting mostly of her $1.1-million
condominium in New York City. She has a $381,000 mortgage and about $31,000 in
the bank. She reported owning no stocks, bonds or mutual funds.
She said that White House Counsel Gregory Craig first contacted her about the
Supreme Court vacancy on April 27 -- five days before Justice David H. Souter
publicly announced he was retiring.
In a speech at Princeton in 1996, she said: "I began a lifelong commitment
to identifying myself as a Latina" while at Princeton, "taking pride
in being Hispanic, and in recognizing my obligation to help my community reach
its fullest potential in this society."
She added: "I underscore that in saying this I am not promoting ethnic
segregation. I am promoting just the opposite: an ethnic identity and pride
which impels us to work with others in the larger society to achieve
advancement for the people of our cultures."

"America has a deeply confused image of itself that is a perpetual source
of tension," she said at a 2006 gathering of Latino students at Yale Law
School. "We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity,
recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its
existence. Yet we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live
in a race- and colorblind way that ignores those very differences that in other
contexts we laud."

She said that the Supreme Court was "just as fractured" as society
over the role of race in public decisions, such as college affirmative action.

"This tension leads many of us to struggle with maintaining and promoting
our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about
to how to deal with its differences," she said.
Sotomayor repeated that she disagreed with a comment attributed to Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the
same conclusion" in deciding cases. "I'm not so sure that I agree
with the statement," she said at Seton Hall Law in 2003. "I would
hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would, more often
than not, reach a better conclusion."
Two years earlier, at the UC Berkeley law school, she said she hoped the
"wise Latina" would reach "a better conclusion than a white male
who hasn't lived that life."

*

THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) STATES WITH A
POPULATION GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WHERE HALF OF ALL JOBS ARE HELD BY
ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. TO BLOCK THE USE OF E-VERIFY,
THE LA RAZA CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW SIGNED BY LA RAZA DEM
JERRY BROWN MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY!!! THIS SAME COUNTY
PAYS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, AND HAS A TAX-FREE
MEXICAN ECONOMY CALCULATED TO BE MORE THAN $2 BILLION PER YEAR!

VIVA LA RAZA?

OBAMA’S AMERICA: Open & Undefended Borders!

“What we're seeing is our
Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them.
Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens
now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien,
you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain
medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children
enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”

*
Obama soft on illegals enforcement

Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have
dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released
Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and
convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal
2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift
enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at
the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican
who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Mr. Smith, the top Republican
on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the
wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs
that Americans otherwise would hold.